Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 13 Mar 1945

Vol. 96 No. 12

Committee on Finance. - Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Bill, 1945—Second Stage.

Minister for Defence (Mr. Traynor)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This is the annual Defence Forces Bill and its first purpose, therefore, is to continue the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Acts, 1923 to 1944, in force for another year—that is, up to the 31st March, 1946. This is being done by Section 2 of the Bill.

This year, however, I find it necessary to introduce some amendments of the existing Acts. The principal amendments—those contained in Sections 3, 4 and 5—are necessitated by circumstances which will arise whenever we find ourselves in the fortunate position of being able to transfer the Defence Forces from an emergency to a peace-time footing.

I shall first deal with Sections 3 and 4 of the Bill. Section 3 provides that a non-commissioned officer or man enlisted for the duration of the emergency may, with his own consent, be transferred from his emergency engagement, without the necessity for formal discharge, to an ordinary engagement under Section 144 of the Act of 1923. This new engagement will be deemed to have commenced on the date on which he entered upon his emergency engagement. Section 4 makes somewhat similar provision in relation to non-commissioned officers and men of the reserve on permanent service.

Without going into figures which the House would not expect me to supply in present circumstances, I may say that in the past 5½ years there has naturally been a preponderance of enlistments for the duration of the emergency over enlistments for regular service. This, coupled with the fact that many non-commissioned officers and men of the regular Army have become time-expired or due for transfer to the reserve and are being held in Army service only by virtue of the existence of the emergency, has brought about the position— inevitable in the circumstances—that the regular Army will be smaller at the end of the emergency, when demobilisation of reservists and durationists will have to be effected, than it was when the emergency commenced.

In considering the question of building up the post-emergency regular Army, it is obvious that, amongst the thousands of young men who enlisted in the Defence Forces during the emergency, there must be many who have acquired a taste for Army life and who, if suitable from the points of view of age, fitness and so on, would be the most natural choice. The Government have given this matter considerable thought and, as a result, I hope to be able to announce, in the near future, the conditions which will be offered to suitable men who are prepared to offer their services and are selected. For a man proposing to take up the Army as a career, a very important consideration would be that the service which he had already given during the emergency would not be wasted for pension purposes. This, accordingly, will be one of the attractions which will be offered. The procedure will be, as I have already mentioned, to re-enlist the man on a regular engagement—from the date on which his emergency service commenced, if he is a durationist, or, if he is a reservist on permanent service, from the date on which he last reported for permanent service. This will have the effect of making his emergency service portion of his regular engagement and of bringing it within the provisions of the Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme.

I may forestall questions by adding that it is also proposed to give suitable temporary and reserve officers an opportunity of taking commissions in the post-emergency regular Army, as vacancies will also exist in the officer corps owing to retirements, etc. In their cases, however, legislative measures are not necessary apart from the amendment of the Defence Forces (Pensions) Scheme to bring their emergency service within the provisions of the scheme. Recruitment to the post-emergency reserve will also be necessary. As I have said, I hope to announce full particulars of the various schemes very soon.

As regards Section 5, I should explain that the great majority of recruits are enlisted for general service, that is, they offer themselves unconditionally for service in any corps, although they may have a preference for a particular corps and such preferences may be taken into consideration if circumstances permit. The main point is, however, that they have no rights as regards the corps to which they may be posted on completion of their recruit training. Up to the present, however, they have had a general entitlement, when once assigned to a corps, to remain in that corps, unless during a period of emergency, when they were liable to be transferred to any other corps. They may, of course, also be transferred at their own request or with their own consent or, in certain cases, as a disciplinary measure.

While a provision of this nature may have its merits in relation to larger armies than ours, it is unsuitable and, in fact, rather unnecessary in the case of our Army, where the conditions of service in the majority of the corps are almost similar and a transfer from one to another would not, as a rule, involve any particular hardship. It is likely to give rise to practical difficulties when demobilisation commences and Army establishments have to be revised. Changes in organisation will then occur which may make it necessary for the military authorities to be able to remove men from the corps in which their services are no longer required or to transfer men to units to fill up gaps caused by the demobilisation of emergency personnel.

Section 5, accordingly, has been drafted so as to enable a man enlisted for general service to be transferred from one corps to another, unless he has had ten years' or more service in a particular corps, in which event he will not be transferred unless with his own consent or when a proclamation ordering the Reserve out on permanent service is in force. Briefly, therefore, the new position introduced is that a man with less than ten years' service in a corps may be transferred from that corps.

Deputies will notice that it is being provided that men specially enlisted for service in a particular corps will not be transferred therefrom except with their own consent. This is in accordance with the existing position.

I need not detain the House long with explanations of Sections 6 and 7. The existing Defence Force Gazette is published in the Department of Defence, but not by the Stationery Office. In the case of court proceedings, therefore, it is not evidence of the status, ranks and appointments of officers, within the provisions of Section 55 of the No. 2 Act of 1940. Section 6 rectifies this matter. Section 7 proposes to remove the present requirement that directions by the Minister for Defence for the reversion of officers from acting higher ranks to their substantive ranks shall be published in Iris Oifigiúil. It is intended that, in future, matters of this nature will be published in General Routine Orders for the information of the Defence Forces.

Mr. Norton

Will the Minister say why that change has been made, under Section 7?

Mr. Traynor

Yes. There are a number of reasons, but the main one is that it will save a large amount of office administration. I just cannot think what the other ones are at the moment, but there are one or two simple matters which do not involve anything in the nature of hardship, or anything like that.

General Mulcahy

It is regrettable that the Minister is not in a position to give a little more information than he has been able to give the House as to what is intended, particularly in regard to those people likely to be demobilised soon from the Army. The Bill provides that a number of them who would normally be due for demobilisation at the end of the emergency can go into the Army and carry their service with them. Everybody will agree with that. But when you look at the type of economic situation that the men who went into the Army for the emergency are likely to face, it would be more fair to them that they would know under what conditions it is proposed to demobilise them in the immediate future.

At the present moment there are large numbers of men in the Army who are anxious to get out, and they feel that if they have to look for employment now, or accept employment now, they may be deprived of certain grants or gratuities that they expect the State will give them in recognition of the fact that they have spent three, four or five years in the emergency service. At a time when the British Army are able to publish the general lines of their demobilisation scheme, it is extraordinary that we, so far removed from the actual scene of conflict, and with so many men anxious to get back to civilian employment, would not know where we stand.

I would like to know from the Minister when he expects to be able to make a statement so that the House, the emergency officers and the men in the Army will know where they stand with regard to the Government's provision for their future, either in the matter of grants or gratuities or facilities for prosecuting the educational courses that many of them interrupted when joining the emergency services or special facilities for getting into employment. The Minister indicated that he will soon publish the terms of employment in the regular army of men who will transfer from the emergency services to the regular Army. I take it these terms will include a statement of what the pension scheme in respect of such men will be.

Moving as we are towards demobilisation point, I would like to point out that there are large numbers of men in the Army who have given a full period of service. They entered the National Forces in 1922, 1923 or 1924, and a number of these men, for one reason or another, when they leave the forces, will find themselves in a shocking position from the point of view of maintaining their wives and families in the light of the present pension scheme. I do not know when the present pension scheme was drafted, but the position with regard to the cost of living has moved forward very seriously since then, and I think it would be an advantage if the Minister were to review the pension scheme from the point of view of men who will now transfer from the emergency services into the Army and join the Army under new conditions. I think it will inevitably be that the House will wish to apply the scheme now being drafted to men who have given full service in the Army from the time it started. I would like some information on that matter from the Minister.

I should like to know when the men who joined the Army during the emergency can expect to know where they stand and when they can expect to be released. The matter is particularly important, in the first place, from the point of view of the cost of the Army and, in the second place, because you have voluntary services there, particularly the L.D.F. You have the L.D.F. standing there able to assist the Army if the Army were reduced in numbers and if they were wanted. The members of the L.D.F. will naturally tend to fall away, as they have been falling away. I think an appeal to the L.D.F. to stand-to and to maintain their organisation and their devotion to duty for a period until the Army could be demobilised, at least to a fair extent, would be most desirable and such an appeal should be made at the present time. It would be more effective if made in the light of definite demobilisation plans. I suggest that before the L.D.F., or any great number of them, feel that they have done their duty, some kind of an outline of demobilisation plans should be issued and the L.D.F. should be asked to stand-to until the end and until it can be completely shown that the L.D.F. have, in fact, done their duty. The men who joined the Army for the emergency, a lot of them, sacrificed a considerable amount, years of opportunity, when they joined and they are the people who ought to be considered. I think the L.D.F. as a whole would be perfectly satisfied to stand-to if it was brought home to them how much is due to the men who joined the Army for the emergency and who are now anxious to get away.

Mr. Norton

This Bill appears to contemplate a situation in which a person who attested for the emergency may be continued in the Army, if he so desires, after the emergency, and his emergency service will be reckoned for pension purposes. Another section of the Bill appears to contemplate a situation in which a person who previously served in the Army and was called up for service in the reserve, may also continue in the Army, having his emergency service reckoned for the purpose of a pension. I am not clear whether the Bill provides for continuing in the Army persons who joined the Army for a certain period before the emergency, whose time expired during the emergency. Will such persons have an opportunity of continuing in the Army, and will their pre-emergency and emergency services be reckoned for pension purposes on their retirement under the Defence Forces Pensions Scheme? It is not clear to me that persons of that kind are covered.

There is another matter, and that is the Government's intentions regarding the demobilisation of what might be described as the temporary Army, the Army constituted of persons who joined various ranks between the outbreak of the emergency and its termination. Certain sections of the Bill and the Minister's speech clearly indicate that the Government's Army policy is moving in a particular direction. The Minister's speech makes reference to demobilisation plans. I think we may frankly face it—we are not far away from demobilisation, or, at all events, the Government is not far away from implementing an Army demobilisation policy. If there is to be Army demobilisation, the longest possible notice of it should be given to those serving in the Army, so that they will be told at the earliest possible moment what is contemplated, so that they will have an opportunity of thinking over the situation in which they will find themselves when demobilised and of making some plans for rehabilitating themselves in private employment when the demobilisation scheme is made operative.

So far, the Government has not given any indication of what its policy in that respect is, and what I fear will happen is that an intimation will be given that it has been decided to demobilise a certain section of the Army—probably a substantial proportion—and that that policy will be implemented with a haste which will cause serious hardship to many of those suddenly demobilised. I do not think that ought to happen and I do not think it ought to be allowed to happen. Those who joined the Army for the emergency made a very considerable sacrifice. They worked at Army rates of pay, which are not the most ideal in the world, and a person would be a long time getting rich on Army rates of pay here. I have seen soldiers' families, their wives and children, and it is just a very tough existence on the present Army rates of pay. There is no bank account at the end of it, and there is very little for luxury spending on the rates we pay to soldiers and the allowances we make to their wives and dependents.

These folk have served the nation well during the past five years. They might, like others, have gone to Britain and got good employment at good rates of wages, but they preferred to join the Army here and to put up with all the grilling that inevitably goes with army life here and elsewhere. If they are now to be demobilised, they ought to get the longest possible notice of the intended demobilisation, but, more important, this House ought to know, and the Army personnel to be demobilised ought to know, how the Government will treat them when they are being demobilised.

It is scarcely contemplated that these people should be sent to the employment exchange or the home assistance officers, that they should be told that they have stamps to their credit and can draw benefit at the employment exchange. That would be a callous indifference to their needs and the sheerest ingratitude for the magnificent service they have rendered over the past five years. If we do not contemplate sending them to the labour exchange, we contemplate doing something else, and the Minister ought to tell us what that something else is. Is it proposed to pay them special allowances until such time as they can get into private employment? How long is it proposed to pay them the allowances and what scale of allowances will be available for them? These men are entitled to expect that a grateful nation, having escaped the ravages of war, will express its appreciation of their willingness to sacrifice themselves by treating those discharged from the Army fairly.

If the Minister in his reply cannot give us detailed information as to the manner in which it is proposed to treat those demobilised from the Army, he at least ought to give us some rough sketch of what he has in mind and of whatever proposals the Government have under consideration. I know from close constituency contact with Army personnel the concern which many of them express with regard to the provision for their future welfare on demobilisation, and the Minister would be rendering a very valuable service to the nation and to the Army if, at this stage, or, if that is not possible, at the earliest opportunity, he indicated what the Government's proposals are. One thing, in any case, the Minister ought to say at this stage, that is, that the Government will treat those demobilised generously and that they will not be cast adrift to fend in any way they can after having served the nation during the very trying period of the past five years.

Seán Mac Cárthaigh

Ba mhaith liom fáilte do chur roimh an mBille seo. Do réir mar thuigimse é, tabharfaidh sé suaimhneas aigne dá lán daoine a chuaidh isteach san Arm le linn na tréimhse sealadaí seo. Iarraim ar an Aire go speisialta go bhfuigheadh na hoifigigh óga, na daoine go mba mhaith leo fanacht san Arm mar slí bheatha, cothrom na Féinne anois.

In welcoming this Bill, I would say that it gives, in great measure, satisfaction to those who joined the Army during the emergency, for the reason that I think there is no danger of what Deputy Norton anticipates happening so suddenly because the Estimate for the coming year is being reduced by only one-twentieth, or 5 per cent. That is an indication of the policy of the Government for the coming 12 months and there will be ample time then to prepare for the future. I join with Deputy Norton in asking the Minister to see that adequate provision is made within the resources of the country and to the extent to which the services given by these men may be considered deserving of recognition in any pension scheme that may be devised for them, but more especially do I ask the Minister to give special consideration to the young men of 1920 and 1921 who joined the Army for the emergency during these formative years. They joined, perhaps not thinking that the emergency would last so long, but still they were prepared to serve their country and give whatever active service might be demanded from them. As the Minister said in his opening speech, it may be that during those formative years they have developed a taste for Army life. Without prejudice to those who may have a prior claim, perhaps the Minister would give special consideration to those young men who desire to continue to serve their country in their present capacity. We all know that entrance to the Army is now, more or less, on a Civil Service basis. Therefore, I think that in the circumstances those men should get special consideration. In general, I think the Bill will be welcomed by those who joined the Army and have been serving their country during the emergency.

Mr. Cogan

I, too, would like to ask the Minister to give the House a definite indication as to what it is intended to do with those who have been serving in the Army during the emergency, how it is intended to treat them, and to secure employment for them in industry. I feel that a grave injustice would be done to the young men who freely joined the National Army during a time of grave danger if they were now to be thrown on the employment exchange. An injustice would be done to them even if a fairly generous allowance were made to them in respect of their period of unemployment. Many of those young men joined the Army at a comparatively early age, at a time when they had received very little training in ordinary civilian employment. If they were now to be turned out on the labour market, after spending four or five years in the Army, they would be forced to complete with men who have acquired considerable training in perhaps many types of civilian employment. Before there is any general demobilisation I feel that the first step to be taken by the Minister and the Army authorities should be to provide, as far as possible; some form of technical training for those men at the particular type of work in which it may be possible for them to find employment. The Minister should discuss with the Ministers in charge of other Departments schemes for absorbing those men in employment.

I am speaking now of the ordinary rank and file of the Army. It may be possible, as a result of big development schemes in regard to road making, general construction work and building, to find an expansion of employment coinciding with the demobilisation of those men, and to fit them into such employment. I think that if the best results are to be obtained in the development of those schemes, and in giving greater satisfaction to those men, it is desirable that they should get a period of training even before they leave the Army. Men in the Army are subject to a certain amount of organisation and discipline, and the suggestion I make is that it might be more easy to organise technical training for them while they are in the Army than take the chance that they will be able to get such training outside themselves. I do not know if it would be possible to implement that proposal, but I think it should receive consideration. Men ought not to be demobilised until work is available for them, and they ought not to be put to the work which is available for them until they have been given some training to enable them to do it.

I understand there are strong rumours in circulation to the effect that it is the intention of the Minister and the Government to introduce a system of universal military training after the emergency. That has been suggested as one means by which a section of Army personnel will obtain permanent employment as instructors. I do not know what foundation there is for the rumour, but it is being freely circulated. I think that, apart from the rank and file of the Army, a very serious problem arises in regard to the commissioned ranks. For the most part, they are men of education who for the past five or six years have been in what may prove to be a blind alley occupation inasmuch as they possibly entered the Army immediately after leaving school or college and are now no better equipped for civilian employment than they were when they left school or college. It would be a very serious thing if they were to be left with a meagre and inadequate means of living. Many of them got married during their period of Army service, and have entered into heavy commitments, so that if their remuneration in civilian employment is not somewhat similar to what they had in the Army, they will be faced with the very much lowered standard of living. From every point of view, I think that that would be undesirable. It might create a considerable amount of unrest and dissatisfaction which no one would like to look forward to. I think that this problem of securing decent employment for the demobilised personnel of the Army, both commissioned and non-commissioned, is a problem which deserves not only very careful consideration by the Minister, but exhaustive co-operation and collaboration between the Minister and the Ministers of other Departments with a view to finding a solution for it. I think that those men certainly have a prior claim on the nation. Everything possible should be done to ensure that there will be no prolonged period of unemployment for them after they have been demobilised.

Mr. Hughes

I cannot understand the necessity for preserving all this secrecy in dealing with the Army and with demobilisation generally. It would appear that the Minister and the Government are trying to insist, both in this House and outside so far as the public generally are concerned, that we are still in danger, and that the emergency, so far as the defence of the country is concerned, is still with us. The position appears to be that the Government cannot risk giving the House any detailed information so far as numbers and other matters are concerned. I am sure it is appreciated by everyone that the danger, so far as this country is concerned, has completely disappeared. Hence, we should be free to discuss a matter like this fully and frankly. If the British Government feel that they are justified in making public their policy of demobilisation, it would appear to me that we, in our circumstances, should be in a position to do the same. This is a very important matter for thousands of men who are in the Army.

Mr. McCarthy

Is it not advisable that we should fix our own standards, and do so from our own point of view?

Mr. Hughes

The Deputy had an opportunity of expressing his point of view, and should have said then what he is saying now by way of interruption.

Mr. McCarthy

I did not know then what Deputy Hughes had to say.

Mr. Hughes

I know that there are a great many men in the Army who feel that they ought to be given some information now as to what the intentions of the Government are, what its plans are for dealing with the Army and its demobilisation. I support the representations that have been made by other Deputies in that respect. It is very unfair to keep men in the dark and the sooner plans are formulated and announced the better it will be for all concerned. We should face up to the reality that we cannot continue to spend on the Army a sum which constitutes a very heavy and substantial burden for this country— £8,000,000. I do not want to belittle the services that have been given by those who offered their services to the nation in an emergency. I appreciate what that meant to these young men at the time, and I am sure every Deputy appreciates the services that have been given. Those services should not be forgotten and, whatever is to be done about demobilisation and for settling them back into civilian life, ought to be done in a generous measure.

Reference has been made to the fact that there are certain individuals in the Army who can go back to their civil positions. They are in a comparatively secure position, but there are thousands of young men who joined the Defence Forces at a very formative period of their lives, when they were just leaving school. They have spent four or five years in the Army and have no particular training for civilian life. It is essential that careful consideration should be given to their future and to the manner of dealing with them. The Minister indicated that this is the normal measure that comes before the House annually to deal with the Defence Forces and that, in addition, there is special provision for allowing volunteers who have been in the emergency services to join the regular services. The Minister, of course, felt that even at this time he could not give any information to the House regarding the numbers engaged in the various services. The farthest he would go was to state that there was a preponderance of men in the emergency services and that in fact the regular Army at the end of the emergency is going to be smaller than it was at the beginning of the emergency. The Minister gave no indication as to what ideas the Government have in regard to the regular Army in the post-war period, as to the size of the Army the Government intend to maintain in the post-war period, as to whether or not any census was taken of the emergency services in order to determine how many men are desirous of joining the permanent Army and, if any number of men are given an opportunity of joining the regular Army, what the strength of the regular Army is likely to be in the post-war period. I think these are very important considerations for this House and that we are entitled to get some information with regard to them.

It is very difficult for a Deputy to make up his mind about this matter in view of the very meagre information we have been given. I cannot understand why it is necessary, at this stage, to be so secretive about it. The problem is not by any means an easy one and I do not want to minimise it in any way. I have no doubt that the wisest course in the matter of demobilisation will be followed, that is, to ensure that no man will be discharged from the Army until it is certain that he is going straight into a job, so that thousands of young men will not be thrown on the labour market without hope of fitting them into civilian life. Possibly, the purpose behind the section is to ensure that they will remain in the Army until an opportunity is provided of fitting them into civilian life. I should like the Minister to be clearer and, if possible, to give us further information about the percentages that are likely to be absorbed into the regular Army and as to the anticipated cost of the regular Army in post-war years.

I again press for full and frank information in regard to the numbers who want to come out of the Army. I believe there is a big number of men who are anxious to come out now. What are the demobilisation plans so far as they are concerned? I would suggest that, when any individual applies for indefinite leave or discharge from the Army, it should be granted immediately. Every individual who leaves and for whom there is a job waiting will represent a reduction of the final problem of demobilisation. I think every Deputy has experienced difficulty at times in getting men out of the Army, especially for agricultural work. Sometimes in the case of skilled agricultural workers serving in the Army representations have to be made for their discharge or to secure indefinite leave for them. That is absurd at the present time. Every individual in the Army who is anxious to leave, and who can show clearly that there is a job waiting for him and that he is a skilled man as far as that job is concerned, should have no difficulty about getting indefinite leave or discharge. I suggest it should be discharge, because the country cannot continue for many more years to meet this burden of taxation. The Minister has not given us any information about what the Government propose to do about the L.D.F. I suppose he does not intend to give the House any further information.

Mr. Larkin (Junior)

Probably the Minister will strongly object to the suggestion made by members of other Parties in the House that this Bill is disappointing, but I cannot see that the Minister is entitled to sustain his objection to that point of view when I recall that over a considerable period there has been almost persistent pressure from members of the House for information from the Minister on matters which would probably be dealt with in the present Bill. While the Dáil and citizens generally are anxious to obtain the information that has been sought of the Minister to-night, I submit that there is a body of citizens who are even more anxious and more particularly concerned to know what is in the mind of the Government and the responsible Minister, namely, the actual serving soldiers in the Army in the various services. It is quite true that during the four or five years' period of service which these men have given, many of them have acquired, as the Minister has said, a taste for military life, but I think it would be very interesting to calculate exactly what percentage they represent of the total number of men in the Defence Forces. I have had very wide contact with them on many occasions, and, with somewhat rare exceptions, the average soldier seems to be most deeply concerned about being allowed to return to what he considers to be normal civilian life at the first possible opportunity.

Only the other day a soldier who was speaking to me on this general matter referred to the present arrangement for granting indefinite leave. I tried to explain that it was difficult to allow any large scale discharge from the Army until such time as there was some undertaking or some possibility of providing employment for a large number of men. He expressed the view that a great number of men in the Army to-day were not concerned at all with what plans were being made to provide them with employment on their discharge, but were anxious merely to get out of the service. They were prepared to take their chance on the labour market and trust either to their good luck or to their special abilities, technical training, etc., to be able to secure employment. Then there is the other factor, that quite a number of them feel that, if they were completely free and in the same position as civilians and not subject to the restrictions attached to indefinite leave, they would have opportunities of seeking work across the water, as many other workers are still doing. This whole atmosphere of anxiety is one that I think the Government are under some obligation to try to allay.

Reference has been made to the fact that we are a neutral country, and yet we have not made any appreciable approach to formulating plans for the discharge of this large body of men or forming any conception as to what we think should be the place into which they will fit on return to civilian life. Yet other nations, who are engaged even yet in vital life-and-death struggles, with millions of men enrolled in the armed services, and with the problems and anxieties of the actual waging of war, can tell us in very considerable detail of the general terms of demobilisation, of the gratuities they propose to provide for the men and women leaving the armed forces, and even the general lines upon which they expect to be able to absorb them back into the various forms of civilian employment. We are out of physical range of the conflict. Even though we may hold different views as to whether the danger has completely passed or not, we are still only engaged on a very small scale problem from the point of view of the conduct of a military force as compared with a nation engaged in actual warfare. Yet we are unable to find the time to deal with this problem.

One could understand the Minister coming here and stating: "While we are in a position to give you a very general view of what we think should be the lines along which demobilisation should take place and the proposals we should make to meet these men's special claims on the nation, we are under the difficulty of not being able to go into exact detail. You will have to bear with us and make allowance for that." But, when we get no information whatever, when we are left in the position, as Deputy McCarthy says, of having the same Estimate continued for a further year with a small reduction, and therefore, apparently, a conclusion to be drawn, as he has drawn it, that we are to continue for the next 12 months as we have in the past 12 months, I think we are entitled and, above all, that the serving soldier is fully entitled to express disappointment.

If we are to continue on the basis of the figures set down in this year's Estimate and hostilities do end within a period of months—and to speak of hostilities ending within a period of months is not using one's imagination, because I believe it is definitely considered by men who have a very close knowledge of the matter that hostilities are within a reasonable reach of termination—suppose they terminate on 1st of June, 1st of July, or 1st August, after they are terminated we are still left with the same military forces and the same financial commitments we had when hostilities were actually proceeding. We will be told by the Minister and by other military experts who speak for the Government in this House that, merely because hostilities have ceased, therefore automatically all danger has not passed for this country. But, if that is so, then we are entitled to have something more to go upon than merely the bald statements frequently made in this House by spokesmen for the Government in that regard. We are entitled to be able to measure to what extent the same degree of preparedness, the same degree of military organisation and the same degree of financial expenditure are required after the cessation of hostilities as, apparently, are required to-day. That is also something as to which we can still only hazard an opinion. We have nothing definite to go upon.

If, on the other hand, there is a feeling in the mind of the Government that, with an early cessation of hostilities, the whole atmosphere and the whole requirements in regard to defence in this country will change and, therefore, certain other proposals will be required to utilise this large amount of man power which will still be in the Army in the form of peaceful pursuits, even though these men may be still under military control, we are entitled to know that. These are not far-fetched propositions; they are not questions of long-scale plans, they are immediately on our door-step. I think the Minister should realise that if, within two or three months, hostilities should cease, then we will have to answer to the men in the Army as to why they are still retained. While these men joined the Army and were prepared to give service in defence of their country and what they regarded as our danger, a great many of them will not be satisfied to continue forms of activity and of life which to many of them are normally not very pleasant and which they only accepted under a feeling of stern duty to their country. Once they feel that the particular danger has passed, they will claim their ordinary right as citizens to be released and to be allowed to return to civilian spheres of life.

This question of demobilisation is not an academic question. So far as this House is concerned, it may be a somewhat general political question, something on which those who speak for sections of citizens feel they are entitled to express a point of view. Certainly, for the soldiers in the various branches of the Defence Forces it is a burning and immediate practical question on which they are fully entitled to press, either directly or through those who speak in this House, for something more definite than they have been given in this Bill.

So far as the Bill is concerned, in the first place, it is the ordinary automatic Bill we must receive every year, with some very slight additions to arrange for some internal changes inside the Defence Forces. Not one single line of it has any particular reference to the problem of the men who have to come out of the Defence Forces. The soldiers, in particular, are interested in very definite questions, some of which have been referred to. If they cannot be told when they may expect to be demobilised, at least they are entitled to know generally the lines along which that demobilisation may take place. I referred to the fact that even in belligerent countries definite plans and priorities have been laid down with regard to demobilisation. It is all very well to tell us that we need not bother about what other countries are doing. But, when we are not doing anything at all, when we are not even thinking about plans, at least we should pay tribute to those who are in a far different position and who can give thought to the problem and work out plans. The soldiers are asking what gratuity on demobilisation the Government hope to be able to provide. That, again, has been worked out definitely elsewhere. We may be in very different financial circumstances, but at least we should know what is running through the mind of the Government and what these men may expect to have as a means of assisting them over this particular break when they change from one activity to another. Here again, we are not only dealing with the problem of tens of thousands of men coming out from the armed forces. What is to be the order of priority, for such employment as may be available, as between those coming out of the Defence Forces, those who are already employed here still—and that is quite a number—and those who will be returning from across the water?

Are we going to throw our soldiers out on the labour market and let them fight it out with others who have not given the service that they have given? Should no consideration be given in regard to the securing not of employment on the scale of relief works and what that implies, but of employment which will allow many of them to take their place in civilian life and establish families and homes on a little higher basis than we allow them as serving members of the forces?

Deputy Coogan, in the course of his remarks, referred to the technical training of members of the Defence Forces in preparation for their release to civilian life. That is a problem which we need to be very careful in dealing with. The Minister is already embarking on little experiments of that kind, and I think he realises the reaction it is having in many quarters. Suppose we have trained a large number of men in the Army, either as various forms of tradesmen, bricklayers, carpenters, electricians, or printers, and release them on the labour market, what is going to be the effect not so much—let us take it from the selfish viewpoint—from the point of view of the men in civilian employment already, but from the point of view of men in the Army who have been given that course of a craft training and then released on the labour market without any proper protection? I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.